Mandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(1)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
IN TH
AB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGAR
RH


CWP-20797
Date of Deci
7-2022 (O&M)
ision: 11.11.2026

Mandeep Sin
ngh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punj
ab & another
...Respondents
CORAM:

Present:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NA
AMIT KUMAR
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Pu
unjab

NAMIT KU
UMAR, J. (Oral)

CM-14284-C
CWP-2022

Application is allowed as prayed
d for.
Main case
1.
The petitioner has invoked the w
writ jurisdiction of this Court by
y
filing the in
stant petition under Article 22
6 of the Constitution of India,
,
seeking the f
following relief:
“ (i) for issuance of a writ in the
e nature of mandamus directing the
e
respondents to consider the ca
andidature of the petitioner for
r
selection and appointment to the p
post of building inspector, pursuant
t
to the advertisement dated
17.06.2022, by treating his
s
diploma/degree in civil engineerin
ng, as equivalent to or higher than
n
the prescribed qualification of
diploma in architect/architecture
e
assistantship, as held in Navjiw v
versus State of Punjab and others
s
and in violation of the settled will
of the full bench judgment passed
d
in Manjeet Singh versus State of
f Punjab and further quashing of
f
clause 2 of the advertisement dat
ted 17/06/2022 (Annexure P-1) to
o
the extent it declined to consider th
he qualification of diploma in civil
l
engineering for the post of bu
uilding inspector, and even the
e
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(2)

representation dated 28/06/2022
(Annexure P-4) of the petitioner
r
has not been considered, in the
e facts and circumstances of the
e
p
present case, in the interest of justi
ice.”

As per the case set up by t
2.
the petitioner, pursuant to the
e
advertisemen
nt dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure
e P-1) inviting applications for
r
131 posts o
f Building Inspector (Group-B
B) in the Department of Local
l
Government
(Municipal Councils/Nagar P
Panchayats) and 26 posts of
f
Building Ins
spector (Group-B) in the Dep
partment of Local Government
t
(Municipal C
Corporations), the petitioner, wh
ho was possessing a Diploma in
n
Civil Engine
eering as well as a Degree in Ci
ivil Engineering, applied for the
e
said posts c
claiming himself to be fully e
eligible. However, his online
e
application
was not accepted on the
ground that his educational
l
qualifications
s were not equivalent to a Diplo
oma in Architecture/Architecture
e
Assistantship
p. Consequently, he submitted a
representation dated 28.06.2022
2
(Annexure P
P-4) requesting the respondent
ts to consider his candidature.
.
However, no
o action was taken thereupon, c
ompelling him to approach this
s
Court by way
y of the instant petition.
3.
Short replies by way of affidav
vits of Mr. Anil Gupta, Deputy
y
Secretary, D
Department of Local Govern
nment, Punjab, on behalf of
f
respondent N
No.1 and Mr. Karamjit Singh, P
PCS, Secretary (Examinations),
,
Punjab Publi
ic Service Commission, Patiala
a, on behalf of respondent No.2
2
have been f
filed. The stand taken therein
is that the petitioner was not
t
eligible for th
he post of Building Inspector, as
s he did not possess the requisite
e
essential qua
alification. It has further been
averred that the qualifications
s
prescribed in
n the advertisement are in confor
rmity with the provisions of the
e
Rules govern
ning recruitment to the post of Bu
uilding Inspector.
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(3)

None has put in appearance on
4.
behalf of the petitioner, despite
e
the case havi
ing been called twice.
5.
Learned State counsel has pro
duced a copy of the judgment
t
Bench of this Court in CWP-
-
dated 26.08.
2025 passed by a Coordinate
14254-2022 ,
titled Nipun Syal and others
v. State of Punjab and others ,
,
along with an
nother connected matter, wherei
in an identical issue came up for
r
consideration
n and the claim raised by the peti
itioners therein was declined.
6.
I have heard learned State couns
sel and perused the record.
7.
The essential qualification pres
scribed in the advertisement for
r
the post of B
uilding Inspector reads as under
:

“ 4. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICA
ATIONS
4.1 Diploma in Architecture/Ar
rchitecture Assistantship from the
e
State Board of Technical Educa
ation Punjab or from any other
r
recognized institution.

OR
Higher Qualification in th
he relevant field from recognized
d
institution.
4.2 Should have passed Punj
jabi of Matric or its equivalent
t
Standard.
xx xx”
xx

8.
The aforesaid essential qualifi
ication has been prescribed in
n
accordance w
with the Rules known as the “
“ Punjab Municipal Corporation
n
Services (Re
cruitment and Conditions of Se
ervice) Rules, 1978” . Appendix
x
'B' appended
d to the said Rules prescrib
bes the following educational
l
qualification
for direct recruitment to the pos
st of Building Inspector:

Append
dix ‘B’
Sr. Name of
No. Service
Qualificatio
recruitment
ons for direct Pay Scale as pe
er
ay
ort
th
7 CPC/ pa
matrix and repo
of in-hous
se
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(4)

committee
(Minimum pa
admissible)
xx
n Architecture/
e Assistantship
State Board of
ay
xx xx
19. Punjab
Service of
Corporation
Building
Inspectors
(Technical)
Diploma in
Architecture
from the S
Technical
Punjab or f
recognized
higher qual
relevant f
recognized i
xx
Education,
from any other
institution or
lification in the
field from a
institution

9.
Admittedly, the petitioner po
ossesses a Diploma in Civil
l
Engineering
obtained from the Punjab State
e Board of Technical Education
n
and Industria
al Training (Annexure P-2) as w
well as a Degree of Bachelor of
f
Technology
in Civil Engineering from I
I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical
l
University,
Jalandhar (Annexure P-3).
A perusal of the aforesaid
d
qualifications
s makes it evident that both pe
ertain to the discipline of ‘Civil
l
Engineering’
’ and not ‘Architecture’. Even th
he higher qualification possessed
d
by the petit
tioner i.e. a Degree of Bach
helor of Technology in Civil
l
Engineering,
does not fall within the di
iscipline prescribed under the
e
applicable R
Rules i.e. Architecture/Archite
ecture Assistantship. Merely
y
because the p
petitioner possesses a higher qu
ualification in Civil Engineering,
,
the same can
nnot be treated as equivalent to
o the prescribed qualification in
n
Architecture.
.
10.
Even otherwise, similar issue a
s has been raised in the present
t
petition stand
ds already considered by a Coo
ordinate Bench of this Court in
n
Nipun Syal's
case (supra) , wherein the claim
m of the petitioners therein was
s
declined. Th
e relevant observations made by
y the Coordinate Bench read as
s
under:
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(5)

“12. Admittedly, the petitioners
s do not possess a Diploma in
n
A
Architecture/Architecture Assistan
ntship, however, they do possess
s
degree/diploma in Civil Engineeri
ing. It is the case of the petitioners
s
that they are entitled to apply t
to the post of Building Inspector
r
(Technical) as they have studied
architecture as a subject during
g
their respective courses and have
acquired the requisite knowledge
e
of the subject. It is further stated
that they cannot be left out of the
e
recruitment process in view of the
Rules of 2015. The entire thrust of
f
the arguments raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners is that
t
the diploma/degree in Civil Engin
neering, which includes the subject
t
of architecture, is equiva
lent to the Diploma in
n
A
Architecture/Architecture Assistan
ntship, and as such the petitioners
s
ought to be allowed to be conside
ered for recruitment to the post of
f
Building Inspector (Technical).
13. It is no longer res integra th
hat this Court, while exercising its
s
p
powers under Article 226 of the C
Constitution of India, cannot act as
s
a domain expert and render a find
ding with respect to equivalence of
f
the prescribed academic qualifi
fications with others. While the
e
p
petitioners claim to be competent t
to perform the duties of a Building
g
Inspector (Technical) by virtue
of their diploma/degree in Civil
l
Engineering, Clause 4(1) of th
e advertisement (Annexure P-1)
)
categorically calls for a Diplo
oma in Architecture/Architecture
e
A
Assistantship. In order to commen
nt on their alike nature, this Court
t
would have to dawn the robes of a
a domain expert, which is expressly
y
p
proscribed by a catena of judg
gments rendered by the Hon’ble
e
Supreme Court.
14.1 Further still, the advertise
ement (supra) does not leave any
y
room for ambiguity regarding the
eligibility criterion for the post of
f
Building Inspector (Technical). It w
would be erroneous on part of this
s
Court to consider the nature and s
scope of the subject of Architecture
e
in the Diploma/Degree course
e of Civil Engineering as the
e
qualification prescribed under C
Clause 4.1 of the advertisement
t
(supra) is not merely directory bu
t is mandatory in nature. Reliance
e
in this regard may be placed on
the judgment rendered by a two-
-
Judge bench of the Hon’ble Sup
upreme Court in Ganpath Singh
h
arga University (2014) 3 SCC 676 ,

Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulba
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M)
(6)

wherein speaking through Justice
e C.K. Prasad, the following was
s
observed:
“21. ...As is evident from
were invited for filling up
including the post of Lect
requires post-graduate deg
relevant subject would,
appointment to the post
degree in MCA. In our opin
Lecturer, Masters' degree
relevant subject. The adver
in `relevant subject' and
present case, the Board of
postgraduate degree in Ma
for MCA but in sum and su
graduate degree in MCA fo
one of the subjects taught
was beyond the power of th
22. It shall not make any
taught in the Masters' of C
learned Single Judge, in
upholding the contention o
`relevant subject' would me
offered in the MCA cours
post-graduate course in C
Commerce would not be
Mathematics or for that m
situation in which Master
christened and such a degr
it would be too much t
postgraduate degree in any
would make the holders of a
as holder of Masters' degr
therefore, eligible for app
advertisement is clear and
ambiguity and, hence, it h
appellant Ganpat did not ha
Application, in our opini
considered for appointmen
aghast to see that when
degree in MCA is availabl
chosen an unqualified and
in that subject. Its recomm
and invalid. Natural coroll
acting on such recommend
Lecturer cannot be allowe
Bench of the High Court
appointment. In our opinion
appointed, whoever may be
opinion that the Division B
in holding that Ganpat wa
Lecturer in Masters' of Com

m the advertisement, applications
s
s
various posts in different subjects
turer in MCA. The advertisement
gree in the `relevant subject'. The
t
e
therefore, in the context of
of Lecturer, mean postgraduate
nion, for appointment to the post of
f
e
f
e
e
e
in the Mathematics is not the
rtisement requires Masters' degree
not `appropriate subject'. In the
f appointment has not stated that
t
t
-
s
athematics is the relevant subject
ubstance it is equivalent to a post-
for the reason that Mathematics is
t in MCA. This, in our opinion,
he Board of appointment .

y difference even if Mathematics is
Computer Application course. The
n our opinion, gravely erred in
s
e
n
of Ganpat and the University that
t
e
a
n
n
a
ean `such of those subjects as are
se' . If Mathematics is taught in a
Commerce, a Masters' degree in
e relevant for appointment in
matter in MCA. There may be a
rs' degree in MCA is differently
ree may be considered relevant but
y
t
g
A
to say that a candidate having
ny of the subjects taught in MCA
a Masters' degree in those subjects
ree in Computer Application and,
pointment. The language of the
d explicit and does not admit any
s

e
y
e
. Since the
as to be given effect to
ave a Masters' degree in Computer
ion, he was not entitled to be
nt as Lecturer in MCA. We are
r
e
e
a candidate possessing Masters
le, the Board of appointment had
'
d
ineligible person for appointment
mendations are, therefore, illegal
lary thereof is that the University
dation and appointing Ganpat as
ed to do so and that the Division
t
l
y
s
n
t was right in setting aside his
n, an unqualified person cannot be
e the recommendee. We are of the
Bench of the High Court was right
s
e
e
t
f
as not eligible for appointment of
mputer Application.”
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M)
(7)

14.2. Further, a two-Judge bench
h of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
n
Devender Bhaskar and others v
vs. State of Haryana and others
s
2022 (1) SCT 51 , has opined th
hat the Courts cannot expand the
e
ambit of the prescribed qualific
cations, nor can they decide on
n
matters pertaining to equivalen
nce of academic qualifications.

Speaking through Justice S. Ab
bdul Nazeer, the following was
s
observed:
“21. In Mohammad Shuj
Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76 , it wa
equivalence of education
question based on proper a
relevant academic standar
such qualifications . It w
decision of the Governmen
of an expert body, then the C
and unaided by technical i
of determining equivalenc
decision of the Governmen
or irrelevant consideration
irrational and perverse or m
22. In J. Ranga Swam
Pradesh and Others, (1990)
is not for the court to consi
prescribed for various posts
23. In State of Rajastha
SCC 252 this Court held
qualification for admission
or promotion in service are
appropriate authority. It wa
jat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &
as held that the question regarding
&
g
al qualifications is a technical
assessment and evaluation of the
rds and practical attainments of
was further held that where the
l
e
f
e
n
a
t is based on the recommendation
Court, uninformed of relevant data
insights necessary for the purpose
ce, would not lightly disturb the
nt unless it is based on extraneous
e
e
s
s
ns or actuated mala fides or is
manifestly wrong.
my v. Government of Andhra
0) 1 SCC 288 this Court held that it
a
t
n
ider the relevance of qualification
s .
an & Ors. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6
6
d that the prescribed eligibility
y
o
to a course or for recruitment to
re matters to be considered by the
as held thus:
e
"13. From the rati
is clear that the pres
admission to a co
promotion in service
the appropriate auth
whether a particular
or should not be
qualification prescri
24. In Guru Nanak D
Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 S
that equivalence is a techni
implied or assumed. Any de
university relating to equi
order or resolution, duly pu
whether a distance educat
degree of MA (English) of th
Court held that no materia
show that the distance educ
as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad R
Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SC
as an employer, is entitled
io of the decisions noted above, it
scribed eligibility qualification for
ourse or for recruitment to or
t
r
r
y
e
d
e are matters to be considered by
hority. It is not for courts to decide
r educational qualification should
accepted as equivalent to the
ibed by the authority ."
Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar
e
r
d
SCC 610 this Court has reiterated
ical academic matter. It cannot be
ecision of the academic body of the
e
e
c
h
ivalence should be by a specific
ublished. Dealing specifically with
tion course was equivalent to the
e
e
o
d
he appellant university therein, the
al had been produced before it to
cation course had been recognized
Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
CC 404 , it was held that the State,
d to prescribe qualifications as a
z

a
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(8)

condition of eligibility, aft
nature of the job, the aptitu
of duties, functionality of
content leading up to the ac
etc. Judicial review can n
prescribed qualifications n
prescribed qualifications w
Equivalence of qualificati
recruiting authority, to dete

14.3. Additionally, as far as the r
fter taking into consideration the
ude required for efficient discharge
of various qualifications, course
e
e
e
cquisition of various qualifications,

e
e
neither expand the ambit of the
nor decide the equivalence of the
with any other given qualification.

s
ion is a matter for the State, as
ermine .” (emphasis added)
reliance on the judgment rendered
d
by the Full Bench of this Court M
Manjit Singh (supra) is concerned,

the same is unfounded as it pert
tains to the issue of a candidate
e
p
possessing higher qualification tha
an what was prescribed.
15. However, considering tha
at these courses have distinct
t
nomenclature, there must be some
e difference in the nature of their
r
respective syllabi. As such, only a
an expert in his/her field can truly
y
and correctly draw equivalence be
etween two degrees as they would
d
p
possess the requisite knowledg
ge to take the said decision.

Furthermore, the essential qualific
cations that will allow a candidate
e
to discharge duties of a Building I
Inspector (Technical) would fall in
n
the exclusive domain of the employ
yer as they are well versed with the
e
nature of the job. Clearly, it
would be beyond the scope of
f
j
jurisdiction of this Court under A
Article 226 of the Constitution of
f
India, to declare equiv
valence of Diploma in
n
A
Architecture/Architecture Assistan
ntship with Diploma/Degree in
n
Civil Engineering, especially in ab
bsence of any Rules in this regard.
CONCLUSION
16. In view of the discussion a
above, this Court does not find it
t
j
justifiable to exercise its inherent
t jurisdiction under Article 226 of
f
the Constitution of India in the
e present case. The question of
f
equivalence may only be answered
d by an expert, which could be the
e
employer itself or the relevant Com
mmission. Accordingly, the present
t
p
petitions are dismissed.”

11.
In view of the aforesaid discussi
ion, particularly, the fact that the
e
petitioner do
es not possess the requisite educ
cational qualification prescribed
d
under the app
plicable Rules and also keeping
in view the decision rendered in
n
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-20797-2022 (O&M
M)
(9)

case (supra) , this Court finds n
Nipun Syal's
no merit in the present petition.
.
Accordingly,
, the same is hereby dismissed.


11.11.2026
Vimal





(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:

Whether reportable:
Yes/No
Yes/No
VIMAL KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.